back to article Anon Mail commenters to stay anon

The Daily Mail does not have to identify the people behind two anonymously posted comments on its website because to do so would breach their rights to privacy, the High Court has said. The subject of a news story had demanded information from the Daily Mail that would help her to identify the two commenters so that she could …


This topic is closed for new posts.


  1. Keith 21

    It;s official then...

    ...the High Court protects everyone's right to be anonymous nasty trolls!

    1. neb

      thank fuck...

      ...for that then, i can now continue being an obnoxious little shit!

      (see what i did there? didya, didya?)

    2. G Wilson

      Yes, that's right, it's "official". No such thing as a troll.

      Whatever sensitive types, wikipediots and their ilk (hi there, Monbiot and Mooney!) would have you believe, posting slightly harsh words on the internet is not a crime.

    3. MonkeyBot

      Dear Mr 21,

      I assume 21 is the family name.

  2. jake Silver badge

    Throwing out "communis rixatrix" with the bathwater?

    Interesting ... Maybe there's hope for Blighty's so-called "common law" yet!

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Big Brother

    ok, now...

    Now I'm scared to say anything in case I get sued. You wouldn't give me up Reg, would you?

    Anon because, well because.

    1. Rob Moir

      Not only

      would the reg never give you up, I dare say they would never let you down either.

      1. Bill B


        @Rob Moir ... Damn you for injecting a Rick Astley song into my head!!

      2. Richard 120


        I don't think they'd run around and desert you either.

      3. Eden

        Plain text rick rolling!

        GAH! Text only Rick Rolling! Simple yet effective.

        Immune to all know forms of no-script >_<

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The thing is

    These people that under the guise of psuedo anonimity think they can post their generalised, knee jerk and over the top comments to an otherwise un-noteworthy news article, well... they're just morons aren't they, the lot of them..... they should all be banned for life from the internet, mobile phones and be made to carry ID cards.

    1. Richard 120

      Are we

      Going for some kind of anonymous twat-o-tron legal feedback loop where the anonymous commentards repeatedly try to sue other anonymous commentards for defamation of their already dubious character?

    2. BristolBachelor Gold badge

      Anonymous Coward

      You calling me a moron? What's your name? I'm sueing you...

    3. Anonymous Coward

      @ a/c 11:57 the thing is

      ...well I think your family is members oft teh Goldffish family and you smell of cabbage innit.

      So der!!!!!!!!

      Suck on dem eggs and all.

      1. Sam Therapy

        Or an ex gf's favourite riposte...

        ...You smell of chips and bum.

    4. Sil_W
      Thumb Up

      Daily Mail

      "they should all be banned for life from the internet, mobile phones and be made to carry ID cards"

      That wouldn't have looked out of place on a Daily Mail comments page. Or, gods help you, the BBC website. Well done. Possibly.

      1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: Daily Mail

        It may have been ironic if you look again. But I don't know why commentards here get so shocked about the crossover with the Mail threads. It's er, quite big.

  5. Code Monkey
    Thumb Up

    Judge shows common sense?

    Blimey. Maybe there's some hope for this sad island after all.

  6. Just Thinking

    Common sense

    When compared to the airport tweet.

  7. bob 46


    The only problem with this ruling is it assumes the Mail has "..a sensible and reasonable reader .."

    Seems unlikely

    1. Code Monkey

      Sensible and reasonable readers

      I get the impression that a lot of Guardian readers troll the Mail fora (and vice versa).

      1. Sil_W

        Trolling the Mail fora

        Point of order: some loanwords from Latin still carry their Latin pluralisations in common usage in modern English (nebula/nebulae, formula/formulae, etc). 'Forum' isn't generally one of them. 'Fora' isn't *wrong*, because it's consistent with the rules of Latin, but it's uncommon and risks looking contrived. The rules of Latin don't always apply in English (hence, for example, the freedom to split infinitives in English if you so choose).

        The more common, perfectly acceptable, usage in modern English would be 'forums'.

    2. heyrick Silver badge

      One downvote?

      That would be the obligatory Mail reader?

  8. Anonymous Coward

    that judgement in full

    "it is important to remember the context. Everything posted on the Daily Mail web site is horrible bile-fueled invective and noone in their right mind would ever take seriously anything published by the Daily Mail newspaper, its website, its readers or its site commentators."

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Thumb Up

    Law in "not an ass" shocker!

    Although I'm somewhat torn, because I like seeing the Daily Mail sued.

  10. Anonymous Coward

    Right to object

    She has a right to object to comments about her, and the publication has an obligation to either take those comments down, or leave them visible.

    If the publication leaves them on place, she can sue them? at which point the anonymous nature of the posters would be a different matter I would wager.

    Seems like a sensible judgement to my mind.

    Anonymous, because we trust El Reg, maybe.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      What does this mean?

      "She has a right to object to comments about her, and the publication has an obligation to either take those comments down, or leave them visible."

      In other words, punters can complain and organisations can ignore them, same as it ever was.

      When NHS trusts, local authorities, etc. mention a "right to complain" they mean that, overwhelmed by the volume of complaints, they've introduced a streamlined process to accept complaints, provide an anodyne reply and transfer them to the round filing cabinet.

    2. Sil_W


      "the publication has an obligation to either take those comments down, or leave them visible."

      So the publication has no obligation at all, then? If they're free to choose either of two options then they're not obliged to do one or the other.

  11. Neil 23

    I'm confused

    I thought the Mail hated the European Convention on Human Rights?

    1. Elmer Phud

      yeah but

      no but yeah but no but

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Principles? Principles?

      We have principles and hold them dearly - how much will you pay?

  12. Jamie Kitson


    Sorely missing from TFA

    "Sorry we are unable to accept comments for legal reasons."

  13. Peter Clarke 1

    Different outcome ...

    ... if it had been a 'well-known celebrity' with a better funded legal team?

    1. lglethal Silver badge


      I wanted to vote you down for being a terrible old cynic.... but i know your right, so i didnt... ;)

      Heres hoping she lost a large portion of the money she got from her original payout in taking this action to the high court...

      1. Alan 6


        "Heres hoping she lost a large portion of the money she got from her original payout in taking this action to the high court..."

        I'm more inclined to think that just like her first case, she used "no win no fee" ambulance chasers. In her first case she won £12k, but the legal fees came to £500k...

  14. Adrian Challinor

    Daily Mail readers....

    Over heard just last week between two friends:

    F1: Well, what do you expect, she reads the Daily Mail.

    F2: Its worse than that, she believes it.

    Cue my splutter whilst drinking.

  15. Tron Silver badge

    That Leonardo DaVinci cartoon...I don't see the joke!

    The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.

    Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Big Brother

      Do you...random?

      I see what you did there.

  16. Is it me?

    Where were the moderators?

    One assumes that the the Daily Mail moderates their comments for libellous comments, don't they, or maybe they like to be sued as much as most of us like to see them sued.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Perhaps they didn't feel the comments in question were libelous

      Wouldn't be the first time someone completely overreacted to a snide comment methinks... and the yardstick for libel is not, AFAIK, if the subject is offended or not.

    2. G Wilson


      There's always the possibility the comments weren't even remotely libelous.

    3. heyrick Silver badge

      @ Is it me?

      Where were the moderators?

      1. Sarah Bee (Written by Reg staff)

        Re: @ Is it me?

        The moderators were curled up in corners, weeping, weeping.

  17. Kubla Cant

    National newspaper commentards

    It's odd. People who add comments to national newspaper web sites, even the quality (former) broadsheets, seem to be mostly ignorant, prejudiced and semi-literate. I've never visited the Daily Mail site, but I don't suppose the standard of comment is higher than in the Times, Independent, Telegraph etc. I've occasionally felt inclined to comment on a story in one of these, but stopped when I saw the company I'd be associating with.

    Reg commentards, on the other hand, are usually trenchant, often well-informed, and frequently witty.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    ...woman. Sounds like a "sue anything for money" person to me.

  19. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The point ...

    the judge basically said that because the comments were on a public forum, then anyone reading them would (should) understand they are made by people who don't know anymore about the subject than the reader.

    So, it's one thing to for "Y" say something nasty about "X" on public forum, where anyone reading can understand that "Y" could be anybody.

    It would still be another thing if people reading knew that "Y" knows "X" personally. Because then their comments would carry more weight.

    Seems to me the judge is pretty much telling people to get a life.

  20. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Biblical Precedents .....although Sublime Programming is much more Advanced in Todays ZerodDays

    "The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood.

    Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact." ....... Tron Posted Monday 28th February 2011 12:34 GMT

    And it is just that sort of misinformed and decidedly retarded opinion, which may or may not be widely prevalent in the mainstream, should the mainstream even pause a moment to ponder on the significance of the notion, and its relationship to the realities which are programmed and presented to societies for their daily bread/viewing, which allows highly sensitive facts [MkUltraSensitive facts, in fact] to be stealthily shared with significant others/movers and shakers, as if in fabulous fictions/a Good Book.

    Methinks, Tron, you be be a lot wiser in changing your opinion and adopting, "Only a fool would take everything posted here as fiction." instead of "Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."

    And you do realise, do you not, Tron, that fact and fiction can easily be one and same to Create a Virtual Reality, which is an Actuality, and it is Presently causing quite some consternation and more than considerable difficulties within previously ruling elite classes, for they would be realising that their Command and Control of it, with IT and Media Mogul tales, is Gone and now lies way beyond their means and ken, and is led by A.N.Others.

    Is it not sore, El Reg, sitting on that fence?

  21. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    the hammer and the thumb


    I was thinking, a better goal to per-"sue" would be to head down to the hardware store, and buy a sledge hammer, then put your left hand on the pub and slam it with the sledge hammer in the right hand, have a pint or two, while your pub friends ducktape the sledge hammer to the left hand and repeat the process on the right. It's also important to remember, the sledge hammer will also fix any problem with the computer. And yet another possibility is to not become a public figure.

    If you can't afford a sledge hammer, I'm sure the court could loan you a gavel, it might take a few more swings to get the message though.


  22. amanfromMars 1 Silver badge

    Fact or Fiction?

    "Warren Buffett isn’t worried about China surpassing the United States, staying optimistic about America’s future despite other nations rising in power.

    "We had four million people here in 1790. We’re not more intelligent than people in China, which then had 290 million people, or Europe, which had 50 million. We didn’t work harder, we didn’t have a better climate, and we didn’t have better resources. But we definitely had a system that unleashes potential," Buffett told Vanity Fair.

    "This system works. Since then, we’ve been through at least 15 recessions, a civil war, a Great Depression …. All of these things happen. But this country has optimized human potential, and it’s not over yet," the chief executive of Berkshire Hathaway said.

    Buffett: China's Economy Isn't About to Surpass US" .....

    Wow, an ostrich with its head buried in the sand ..... and typical of the hubris which is destroying Uncle Sam's power base. No longer an Omaha sage, as everyone turns over the page to read and learn of New MkUltraSensitive High Tech World Order Programming from Clouds into CHAOS and Virtual Operating Systems, ........ for a Change to Reality, which Warren has oft admitted is something which he knows nothing about and thus avoids investing in, as if IT is the Plague rather than the dDeliverer of Manna from Heaven.

  23. Graham Marsden


    ... Ms Streisand...!


This topic is closed for new posts.